posted
Well, as long as we're tossing insults about, I've got an itching to call someone a crosseyed cornhusking monkey lover. Just wanted to get that out of my system.
Also, I want to mock the opposing beliefs too. So it goes:
We should trade with Cuba because a free market will force their inferior economic system to compete with our superior one.
Oh, but Castro will make all the money!
Not so. In order to compete with a capitalist society, Cuba must inevitably become more capitalistic itself.
Oh, but Castro will control all the businesses!
Not so. Such an economic system demands that business owners be free to make their own decisions.
Oh, but Castro will win!
How, exactly? Either Cuba's businesses remain under governmental control or they don't. If they do, then they fail and the whole nation collapses under competition. If they don't, then you automatically begin to create a middle class. Middle classes are dangerous things, as they begin to clamor for things like freedom and political representation.
Anyway, tell you what. We'll meet back in a decade or so. If I'm correct, and China continues to pursue economic viability, it will see its totalitarian government stressed to the breaking point. If not, I owe you a Coke.
posted
"Not so. In order to compete with a capitalist society, Cuba must inevitably become more capitalistic itself."
I'm not certain this is so. By this logic, wouldn't more of the countries we trade openly with be more capitalistic? Say... Iraq and various other middle-eastern countries that we trade with more openly? As I recall, most of them are still monarchies and oligarchys. We traded with South Africa for a loooong time while the white minority controlled everything there...
And just how does capitalistic = free? Medieval Europe was very capitalistic... and they had Kings.
I agree with Omega. Just because we happen to agree with CURRENT policy does NOT mean we agree with ALL PAST policies. (I forget the name of THAT particular logical fallacy) NOR does past policy being wrong invalidate CURRENT policy. (That belief is another one, but I forget its name too.)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
"one can only bang ones head against a wall of idiots for so long."
I, for one, never get tired of it. Makes me feel really superior to know that there are so many idiots out there who wouldn't know logic if it bit them on the butt.
"...and brush away valid points..."
Make a valid point and I'll get back to you.
Let me make it really simple for you all:
Q) Should we trade with China and Cuba?
Premise 1) Opressive governments are bad, and should be replaced with non-opressive governments.
Premise 2) If a certain action had a certain effect in a certain situation in the past, a similar action is likely to have a similar effect in similar circumstances.
Premise 3) The situation with the opressive governments of China and Cuba is similar to past situations with other opressive governments.
a) The governments of China and Cuba have both commited terrible, inhumane crimes, and severely restrict the basic freedoms of their people. Thus, these governments fit the description of opressive governments.
2) If the governments of China and Cuba are opressive governments, and opressive governments should be overthrown, then the governments of China and Cuba should be overthrown.
Evidence) Historical analogies, as First just pointed out, show that trade with opressive governments in the past did not help overthrow the governments.
3) Since trade with opressive governments in the past did not help overthrow those governments, since actions in the past are likely to have the same effect in similar circumstances, and since Cuba and China are similar situations to said past situations, it follows that trade with Cuba and China will not help overthrow their opressive governments.
Q.E.D.
Now instead of making vague accusations about twisting, squirming, and skirting the fringes of arguments, how 'bout picking a specific section of this argument and disputing it. Otherwise, it stands.
Take my advice: when you're faced with an unwinnable situation in which holding will do no good, capitulate. There is no glory in fighting on after you have been proven wrong, for you will only reduce your own credibility.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
1) Because we have a liberal in office who couldn't care less about human rights abuses.
2) Because we have a liberal in office who couldn't care less about our national security..
Now if you're finished dodging MY questions...
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
quote:Why is the United States currently normalizing trade with Vietnam?
quote:Because we have a liberal in office who couldn't care less about our national security.
<George Takei>Oh, Myyyyyy</George Takei>
Let me guess. Vietnam will strap hydrogen bombs to boat people, dispatch them in sampans to Long Beach, CA, where they will detonate, destroying the American economy as we know it, largely because its been undermined by "those meddling liberals"?
------------------ "When I was in prison I was wrapped up in all those deep books. That Tolstoy crap. People shouldn't read that stuff. When we read these books what purpose does it serve in this day and time?" -Mike Tyson
posted
Ahh, now I am beginning to understand. Lee told me this would happen. I got somewhat irritated when Omega ignored the points in my previous post, but its all coming together.
You know what he told me? That I could throw as much logic and truth at them as I like, and they'd just ignore it. Jay seems to have hit the same snag. I'm going to mail him a brick. So he can hit his head with it. Probably a lot less painful than the current state of affairs.
Do you chaps think we can whittle this down to a
'Did so!' 'Did not!' argument?
------------------ "More beer, more beer, more beer, more beer! ARSE!" - Ode to God.
posted
1) As "only Nixon could go to China", I'd guess the 70's. Irrelevant to my argument
2) and 3) same answers. We trade with China because Clinton doesn't care about human rights abuses. If he did, we wouldn't trade with China.
Your credibility continues to fall. There is no reason that I need to answer your questions before you can respond to my argument. Changing the subject is not a legitimate debating tactic.
Daryus:
If by your previous post, you mean the last one you made, I did respond to it. See the post immediately following about creation of wealth.
How 'bout you guys just create an argument similar to the one I did? You claim that you've thrown logic at me, but I have yet to see any. Choose a premise in my argument to dispute, post your argument so that I can pick at it, or you loose whatever pretence you had of trying to make a rational argument.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Um...as easy (& stupid) as it may be to blame Clinton for everything that's wrong with this nation, I seem to remember that the foundation for current Chinese relations, both economic & political, started well into the Bush Administration. In fact, I'll lay seven to 5 odds that the current Chinese policies will not only stay & effect & continue, but also flourish & expand come the next president, whether it be Al Gore, GW Jr., or Marlon Freeman from Lower Grondop, Idaho.
It's called "political expediency."
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
posted
"You claim that you've thrown logic at me, but I have yet to see any."
This keeps popping up. Apparently, no-one has made any logical point in this thread. And since this phrase pops up fairly often, I'm guessing that no-one has ever said something logical.
Just because someone says something different to your opinions, it doesn't mean it's illogical. You are assumming you believe what you believe because you've looked at all the facts, and your is the only rational answer. Guess what? Others don't agree. And you are not the most correct man in the universe.
Or, in a nutshell, "your logic does not resemble our Earth logic."
------------------ "I can't believe we're actually gonna meet Guru Lou. Everyone says he's the wisest man in the universe. He's sensitive, creative, has a great sense of humour, and he's a really smooth dancer. *giggles*" "You're confused Polly. We're not meeting Paul Newman." - Polly & Speedy; Samurai Pizza Cats
posted
There's a difference between demonstrating logic and simply giving what you believe to be a logically derived opinion.
You guys seem to think that my argument is completely without merit. So tell me where the problem is. I've spelled the whole chain of reasoning out for you. If my assumptions are correct, and my logic is sound, then my conclusion must be correct. If you've got a problem, point it out. If not, then capitulate. Either way, stop dodging the point.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
Ah, Nixon is correct!! At least for question one. Very good grasshopper....
However, it wasn't until 1976 that the United States finally formalized full relations with China.
Sanctions have become a stick to use in foreign policy. Look out, we have an actuall continuation of policy from administration to administration!! As the great Vin Scully would say after watching yet another monster homerun from a Dodger player, Oh my....
Now, your previous answers to the questions below...
Why are we currently trading with China?
?Why are we currently normalizing trade relations with Vietnam?
were...and let me check the tape on this one Omega...
quote: 1) Because we have a liberal in office who couldn't care less about human rights abuses.
2) Because we have a liberal in office who couldn't care less about our national security..
So, as your thought process goes, we have governemtal and trade relations with China because of a liberal being in office who doesn't care about human rights abuses...
Nixon a liberal?!?! Whoa, back the train up to the station there mister!!
And Tiananmen Square happened in, let's just check the old almanac here...1989. And according to the almanac, George Bush was the Forty-First President and served from 1989-1993. Now, my recollection might be off a bit, but Bush, while not as conservative as Ronny Reagan (who, funny as it may sound, didn't stop trade with China) was a bit more to the right than, oh say Bill Clinton.
In fact on 24 May 2000, the Republican controled House voted to make permanent China's normal trading rights in the United States. House Republicans liberal...hmm.
So, in light of the above, your answer to question number 1, as to the perceived liberality of President Clinton is, well, ignorant.
Now, question number 2. Also an ignorant answer from Omega. Let's see if we can find something more in the realm of possibilty. Perhaps we can find some sort of parallel between the Cuban situation and Vietnam.
Orange County ghas a Little Saigon which contains a core group of anti-communists just like Little Havana. Believe me, I've seen the protests. Not so long ago, there were huge protests over a shop owner putting a picture of Uncle Ho up in his store and there was a big clash of the Bowers Museum displaying art from Vietnamese artists that the core ex-patriots thought to be too pro communists. Well, the hue and cry from this group was ignored and we went ahead with trade to Vietnam.
Two weeks ago, the Clinton administration announced it would lift economic sanctions against North Korea that have been on the books since the early 1950s. And by umpin-yimminy there seems to be some good things happening here. The North is actually talking to the South about reunification!!
Fascinating how all this works isn't it Omega.
Now we do not currently trade with Cuba.
The general, and I would say disingenuous, argument for not trading with Cuba is that Cuba is a communist state and Castro has done some bad things while in office.
Cuba is a communist state. We trade with other communist states. China, Vietnam, North Korea...
But oh oh, China and the others are bad too and as an anti-commy red hater we shouldn't trade with them!!!
Not the question we are arguing. We trade with the countries listed above. We're talking about Cuba. We are talking about bringing Cuba up to a par with other communists countries we currently have trade relations with. Why we should or shouldn't.
Why don't we then? A consistant foreign policy would have to argue that we also trade with Cuba as well. China has Tiananmen Square in it's background...Vietnam and N. Korea has it's share of bad things done I'm sure.
What the Cuban situation really comes down to is an argument of National Memory (yes, Kathy, I have mentioned this before). Americans have a very selective memory when it comes to some things. Not about Cuba it seems. Americans remember that Cuba used to be open for business to go in and make profits. In other words American citizens remember that it was pretty much our island.
And Americans, stanchly anti-communist, took great exception to the fact that Cuba, our island, and island in our very backyard went Commy!! The Bastards....we'll teach them a lesson!!!
That is why we don't trade with Cuba. And, and I said before, those are fairly hypocritical reasons too.
Consider the argument as a whole Omega before you cut and paste sentences 3, 16 and 45 to argue against.
------------------ Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much..... ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited July 29, 2000).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
